Székesfehérvár

Paulomos1 wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Paulomos1 wrote:

....
Thanks for that fantastic information. I will start gathering the document they required in a file and probably pay them a visit before the end of August to sort my residence permit.

Oh, btw, you might need a translation of your marriage certificate.   So that's something that could be done whenever you visit or your other half could get organised before you arrive. It's quite useful here and there.

There used to be only one place to get that stuff translated - OFFI - but those rules have been relaxed.

However, no-one has reported here  acceptability of non-OFFI translated documents - at least none I can remember.

The marriage was held in Óváros tér, Veszprém, Hungary back then. The certificate is written in Hungárian and English language.

Oh, easy then, you're set and ready to go!

Paulomos1 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Oh, btw, you might need a translation of your marriage certificate.

He keeps saying "Partner".... so was wondering if married, but did not want to presume. If married, then the family reunification is the way to go if future issues are a problem....

Yeah, we married ofc. I have the marriage certificate with me. is the Family reunification  much better than the residence card? Please How does the family reunification works by the way?

You don't need family reunification.  It's not that complicated.

You're and EU national (at the moment) and therefore absolutely entitled to be here in your own right according to your EU treaty rights.

Just assemble your docs and go and register. Take your other half with you as HU people have magic powers* to deal with HU bureaucrats and issues arising. You'll be out of there in 30 mins (plus any queue of course).

*I am of course joking  (sort of) about the magic powers. All I know is that I ask and I get nothing, she asks and she gets everything.

klsallee wrote:

Paulomos1 wrote:

Switzerland deal with EU

Hum..... Are you aware of the 2014 Swiss immigration initiative?

Another mess.

Would be best if they remain in EU. It's sad that we don't have a say in it anymore.
The referendum have done a lot of mess already. No deal is more or less a suicide. I don't see them going on that route.  Time will tell if Bojo can do anything meaningful. I can't trust any politician anymore. I wish I could avoid getting information in Regards to politics, they are all dirty pig, unfortunately I keep getting update when I go on social media or turn on the TV.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Paulomos1 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

He keeps saying "Partner".... so was wondering if married, but did not want to presume. If married, then the family reunification is the way to go if future issues are a problem....

Yeah, we married ofc. I have the marriage certificate with me. is the Family reunification  much better than the residence card? Please How does the family reunification works by the way?

You don't need family reunification.  It's not that complicated.

You're and EU national (at the moment) and therefore absolutely entitled to be here in your own right according to your EU treaty rights.

Just assemble your docs and go and register. Take your other half with you as HU people have magic powers* to deal with HU bureaucrats and issues arising. You'll be out of there in 30 mins (plus any queue of course).

*I am of course joking  (sort of) about the magic powers. All I know is that I ask and I get nothing, she asks and she gets everything.

Alright, thanks for the clarification.

fluffy2560 wrote:

You're and EU national (at the moment) and therefore absolutely entitled to be here in your own right according to your EU treaty rights.

Correct. Which is why I said...

klsallee wrote:

family reunification is the way to go if future issues are a problem....

Note the "if future issues are a problem"... Again note the "if". Seriously... basic English content there.

And if they ever are, then go to this sticky post:

https://www.expat.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=758222

Seriously... hope for the best. But plan for the worst. Nothing worse, or more embarrassing, than "assuming the best" with one's head in the ground.... 

And in Hungary.... +Hungarian bureaucracy,  I recommend you plan for the worst..... 

Paulomos1 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

Paulomos1 wrote:

My partner dad and mum live in the house and they can always contact us when we have documents or letters. I will use the house as permanent address and later on use the as I rent as a temporary address.

Okay.

But if hard Brexit, then you may become a third party national, and you will still need to inform the local authorities where you "actually" live, regardless of your "official" address.

Rushing to get residency may, or may not, matter. If a hard Brexit, the Hungarian government can still call you a third party national. So your status may be.... in flux.

Also, Veszprém megye just means Veszprém County. Actual residence address is not a county issue. But a city, town, village issue. There is a Veszprém government office for registration of foreign residences, I use it, that is different.

Yeah, you are definitely right 👉🏿. Though I don't expect a hard brexit.  Unfortunately we can't really predict what a BOJO Government is going to look like. Hopefully there will be a compromise between UK and EU. I can't imagine the prospect of  British citizens being regarded as a third party national in Hungary lol 😂

We US and Canadian citizens are called 3 rd world here so don't take it personally.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
We US and Canadian citizens are called 3 rd world here so don't take it personally.

I've worked for US companies that were in receipt of US government funds and the work was in a different country (of which I was not a national) and we were called "politely" 3rd country nationals by the US government.  We were on our European doorstep as well which was unfortunate wording and phraseology.  Too much sense of entitlement - yes, you know who you are George Dubya.

Canada, NZ and Australia etc - all 1st world countries. 

US is a first world country apart from the 3rd rate healthcare system*.

*Ok, only partially true - hoping for some trolls to berate me......!!!

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

Paulomos1 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

Okay.

But if hard Brexit, then you may become a third party national, and you will still need to inform the local authorities where you "actually" live, regardless of your "official" address.

Rushing to get residency may, or may not, matter. If a hard Brexit, the Hungarian government can still call you a third party national. So your status may be.... in flux.

Also, Veszprém megye just means Veszprém County. Actual residence address is not a county issue. But a city, town, village issue. There is a Veszprém government office for registration of foreign residences, I use it, that is different.

Yeah, you are definitely right 👉🏿. Though I don't expect a hard brexit.  Unfortunately we can't really predict what a BOJO Government is going to look like. Hopefully there will be a compromise between UK and EU. I can't imagine the prospect of  British citizens being regarded as a third party national in Hungary lol 😂

We US and Canadian citizens are called 3 rd world here so don't take it personally.

Alright, I thought it is for those immigrants from Africa or Arab countries. coz I was thought something different back in university that A Third World country is a developing nation characterized by poverty and a low standard of living for much of its population.

Paulomos1 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

We US and Canadian citizens are called 3 rd world here so don't take it personally.

Alright, I thought it is for those immigrants from Africa or Arab countries. coz I was thought something different back in university that A Third World country is a developing nation characterized by poverty and a low standard of living for much of its population.

Actually the local term is "Third-Country" nationals. Not "Third world"

http://www.bmbah.hu/index.php?option=co … mp;lang=en

As I understand it:

EU nationals = First country
Non-EU but EEA nationals - Second Country
All others - Third Country.

As a USA citizen, I am a Third Country citizen in the EU.  But living in Europe for almost two decades, so have full residency rights. I can do most everything, but vote in national elections.

So post hard Brexit, British citizens may be second or third country.

klsallee wrote:

Paulomos1 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

We US and Canadian citizens are called 3 rd world here so don't take it personally.

Alright, I thought it is for those immigrants from Africa or Arab countries. coz I was thought something different back in university that A Third World country is a developing nation characterized by poverty and a low standard of living for much of its population.

Actually the local term is "Third-Country" nationals. Not "Third world"

http://www.bmbah.hu/index.php?option=co … mp;lang=en

As I understand it:

EU nationals = First country
Non-EU but EEA nationals - Second Country
All others - Third Country.

As a USA citizen, I am a Third Country citizen in the EU.  But living in Europe for almost two decades, so have full residency rights. I can do most everything, but vote in national elections.

So post hard Brexit, British citizens may be second or third country.

Fair enough. I finally understand the difference. Cheers 🙌🏿

klsallee wrote:

Paulomos1 wrote:

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

We US and Canadian citizens are called 3 rd world here so don't take it personally.

Alright, I thought it is for those immigrants from Africa or Arab countries. coz I was thought something different back in university that A Third World country is a developing nation characterized by poverty and a low standard of living for much of its population.

Actually the local term is "Third-Country" nationals. Not "Third world"

http://www.bmbah.hu/index.php?option=co … mp;lang=en

As I understand it:

EU nationals = First country
Non-EU but EEA nationals - Second Country
All others - Third Country.

As a USA citizen, I am a Third Country citizen in the EU.  But living in Europe for almost two decades, so have full residency rights. I can do most everything, but vote in national elections.

So post hard Brexit, British citizens may be second or third country.

In the first instance, first country nationals are Hungarians for here, 2nd country might be citizens with treaty rights and 3rd country is any other citizen.

Post-Brexit I expect we (British) will be 2nd country for perhaps 2-3 years during a transition.

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

Paulomos1 wrote:

Alright, I thought it is for those immigrants from Africa or Arab countries. coz I was thought something different back in university that A Third World country is a developing nation characterized by poverty and a low standard of living for much of its population.

Actually the local term is "Third-Country" nationals. Not "Third world"

http://www.bmbah.hu/index.php?option=co … mp;lang=en

As I understand it:

EU nationals = First country
Non-EU but EEA nationals - Second Country
All others - Third Country.

As a USA citizen, I am a Third Country citizen in the EU.  But living in Europe for almost two decades, so have full residency rights. I can do most everything, but vote in national elections.

So post hard Brexit, British citizens may be second or third country.

In the first instance, first country nationals are Hungarians for here, 2nd country might be citizens with treaty rights and 3rd country is any other citizen.

Post-Brexit I expect we (British) will be 2nd country for perhaps 2-3 years during a transition.

I believe after Brexit those from the UK will be 3 rd country citizens just like everyone else who is not in the EU. Why would they have special rights after they are no longer in the EU?
It's not a big deal to go through immigration and get your cards to stay if you have a legit purpose to be in Hungary.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

...
Post-Brexit I expect we (British) will be 2nd country for perhaps 2-3 years during a transition.

I believe after Brexit those from the UK will be 3 rd country citizens just like everyone else who is not in the EU. Why would they have special rights after they are no longer in the EU?
It's not a big deal to go through immigration and get your cards to stay if you have a legit purpose to be in Hungary.

As far as we know, that's exactly right.

However, some countries - like Czech Rep and Poland and I think possibly Spain recently - have introduced special regulations/legal protections for British citizens post-Brexit.  It's being done on a reciprocal basis and is dependent on the UK protecting those countries' nationals already in the UK.  If a country hasn't signed up, their citizens already living in the UK will definitely be protected inside the UK regardless but same is is not true (or clear) the other way.    That's regardless of a formal agreement.


Generally it means those registered there won't be kicked out after 90 days like other non-visa country nationals.  Those arriving after Brexit day will be "ordinary" 90-day visitors with no further rights than anyone else (from a 3rd party country).

There are already some agreements on certain areas of trade just to keep things running. Post-Brexit day, the planes and trains, banks etc will continue to operate as normal - at least for 9-12 months.

There are supposed to be some knock on effects like the European health cards becoming invalid but other than that, no-one knows for sure what will happen!   No way to run a railroad.

Some UK immigration arrangements have changed already.  It seems to be a pre-Brexit related idea for opening trade and access but might be something else.  If a US/Canadian/Australian/NZ/Japanese citizen and maybe some others arrive in the UK airport, they can use the e-gates to enter the UK now. Previously it was only EU and Switzerland.   The UK is considering more open access to the UK labour market for those citizens.  It's like that anyway for Australia and NZ for people below the age of 30.

I believe it was already possible for those listed citizens to arrive in the UK to work, without having a pre-arranged work permit.  They can just arrive, then do the paperwork.

Seems you've done your research.
Makes some sense after all.
I suppose I am used to hearing about rapid changes in things.
Like HU turning communist and revolutions etc. In other countries.
Like I've mentioned before , my US American citizen grandfather was in Poland as a teenager around I am guessing the year 1917. He was drafted into the Czars Army, no one cared if he had a US passport or not.
Don't think he was in Poland at the time, might of still been part of Hungary or even the Ukraine.
My grandmother and father were born in the same house but in two different countries.
She in Hungary and he in Poland.

fluffy2560 wrote:

However, some countries - like Czech Rep and Poland and I think possibly Spain recently - have introduced special regulations/legal protections for British citizens post-Brexit.  It's being done on a reciprocal basis and is dependent on the UK protecting those countries' nationals already in the UK.  If a country hasn't signed up, their citizens already living in the UK will definitely be protected inside the UK regardless but same is is not true (or clear) the other way.    That's regardless of a formal agreement.

Are such unilateral agreements allowed for EU countries?

Also, it is a bit ironic, since some part of the populous Brexit hysteria was due to movement of many Central Europeans in the UK and "abusing" the UK social system. Wonder how these people will vote next time for a Torry government that makes such unilateral agreements.....

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

However, some countries - like Czech Rep and Poland and I think possibly Spain recently - have introduced special regulations/legal protections for British citizens post-Brexit.  It's being done on a reciprocal basis and is dependent on the UK protecting those countries' nationals already in the UK.  If a country hasn't signed up, their citizens already living in the UK will definitely be protected inside the UK regardless but same is is not true (or clear) the other way.    That's regardless of a formal agreement.

Are such unilateral agreements allowed for EU countries?

Also, it is a bit ironic, since some part of the populous Brexit hysteria was due to movement of many Central Europeans in the UK and "abusing" the UK social system. Wonder how these people will vote next time for a Tory government that makes such unilateral agreements.....

It only kicks in when Brexit does because then the UK is a separate non-EU country and only on a reciprocal basis.  For Schengen, the member countries have indeed outsourced many policies but it's not a single authority like say an EU Immigration Ministry as the EU is not a country, it's a trade agreement.

There's mutual recognition of visas but the actual mechanism of who gets to stay etc., in a country,  is still in the competence of the nation states.   It's outside of the EU brief to prevent say, deportation.

The EU interferes in much but some things are outside of their brief.  Taxes are another one - the only thing the EU does is coordinate the minimum tax (15%) but there's no upper limit, i.e. HU's 27% VAT.   There are also no duties between EU countries. Any other taxes are outside their competence unless it's about the "common market", freedom of movement and barriers to trade.

Monetary policy is another thing I've not understood about the EU and they don't even understand it themselves - e.g. Greece had different interest rates to say, Germany but both use the Euro.  That's just weird - we know where the money will go. Apart from being able to increase exports by lowering exchange rates, I don't see how you can control inflation without a control lever on your own currency interest rates or being able to inject more cash into the system vis-a-vis quantitative easing. 

As for irony, actually no-one really knows what triggered the Brexit hysteria in the UK  - it wasn't about the social security system which has seen considerable changes (I won't say reform, people have suffered horribly in the changes).  Brexit seems to be born out of an idea that so many foreigners were pushing down wages and indigenous folks were being put out of their jobs by the archetypal Polish builder or plumber - my own nephew included but that's another story.

Now everything has calmed down somewhat and it's 3 years later, no-one seems to know what it was or is really about.

I'm an quandry myself about it. I want the EU to get an utterly brutal kicking to reform itself out of being a protectionist racket but I hold the idea of the freedom of movement and more homogeneity between peoples across the continent very dear.  I, Mrs Fluffy and the Fluffyettes have become products of the freedom of movement. I'm in total cognitive dissonance over it all these days.

fluffy2560 wrote:

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

However, some countries - like Czech Rep and Poland and I think possibly Spain recently - have introduced special regulations/legal protections for British citizens post-Brexit.  It's being done on a reciprocal basis and is dependent on the UK protecting those countries' nationals already in the UK.  If a country hasn't signed up, their citizens already living in the UK will definitely be protected inside the UK regardless but same is is not true (or clear) the other way.    That's regardless of a formal agreement.

Are such unilateral agreements allowed for EU countries?

Also, it is a bit ironic, since some part of the populous Brexit hysteria was due to movement of many Central Europeans in the UK and "abusing" the UK social system. Wonder how these people will vote next time for a Tory government that makes such unilateral agreements.....

It only kicks in when Brexit does because then the UK is a separate non-EU country and only on a reciprocal basis.

I see. So not a unilateral agreement. But a tit-for-tat law.

Yes, I guess those would be okay. But no guarantee of adoption by the other country.

fluffy2560 wrote:

There's mutual recognition of visas but the actual mechanism of who gets to stay etc., in a country,  is still in the competence of the nation states.   It's outside of the EU brief to prevent say, deportation..

Not fully correct. For example, I have a permanent residence visa. Which is a matter of EU law. I can only be deported under those conditions agreed to by Hungary when it became an EU member. So in effect, EU law became HU law.

klsallee wrote:

.....
I see. So not a unilateral agreement. But a tit-for-tat law.

Yes, I guess those would be okay. But no guarantee of adoption by the other country.

Correct-a-mondo....I think it wouldn't be called tit-for-tat more like mutual assurance.  They make their own immigration policies regardless of Schengen.  More like half bilateral than unilateral.  Not an open book.

fluffy2560 wrote:

There's mutual recognition of visas but the actual mechanism of who gets to stay etc., in a country,  is still in the competence of the nation states.   It's outside of the EU brief to prevent say, deportation..

klsallee wrote:

.....
Not fully correct. For example, I have a permanent residence visa. Which is a matter of EU law. I can only be deported under those conditions agreed to by Hungary when it became an EU member. So in effect, EU law became HU law.

Anyone can be deported, including EU nationals but there has to be a pretty good reason for it.  Having a residence visa doesn't mean anything much if they (the authorities) decide to deport you because say, you have extremist views, err...like The Donald's sidekick, Steve Bannon or Erich Gliebe.  Maybe they just take a dislike to you.  You could just be banned from travelling in the first place.    Turning up at BUD airport immigration desk wielding an issued visa has only given permission to travel, not right of entry.  That's decided by the border officer there and then. Final immigration decisions are always the competence of nation states.

My understanding is that while EU law is implemented in Hungary, it's done on the basis of what the EU call the Acquis.  This is not so much EU "law" but raft of requirements to be fixed into HU law by the time of accession.  So long as the HU version matches the Acquis and the body of law stemming from it (i.e. judgements from the EU Courts of Justice-ECJ), then they are compliant and OK. National legislation can however be overruled by the ECJ in their area of competence. 

National law doesn't even have to be the "gold plated" interpretation.  Typically though it is the minimum for some countries who play fast and loose with interpretation of EU law.   You might have heard of the passing of "Chapters" during accession. This is where EU "law" is written into national law. 

Austria was a good example - when they joined the EU, they put up all sorts of signs at the border trying to stop people buying and personally importing cheap cigarettes from Hungary to Austria. They went through this ludicrous charade of saying people can only have one packet of up to 25.  Obviously, that's not a free market so that only lasted about a month before they got slapped down.  It was a very stupid thing to try and do.

fluffy2560 wrote:

Anyone can be deported, including EU nationals but there has to be a pretty good reason for it.  Having a residence visa doesn't mean anything much if they (the authorities) decide to deport you because say, you have extremist views, err...like The Donald's sidekick, Steve Bannon or Erich Gliebe.  Maybe they just take a dislike to you.  You could just be banned from travelling in the first place.    Turning up at BUD airport immigration desk wielding an issued visa has only given permission to travel, not right of entry.  That's decided by the border officer there and then. Final immigration decisions are always the competence of nation states.

Actually, not that simple. A resident has a right to appeal, for example. As in this case regarding attempted deportation (detention and deportation can not be as capricious as you suggested -- there are requirements that must be met):

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content … mp;from=EN

The ending decision was that deportation is not always valid, but when it is it should be done "under limits imposed by Community law".

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

Anyone can be deported, including EU nationals but there has to be a pretty good reason for it.  Having a residence visa doesn't mean anything much if they (the authorities) decide to deport you because say, you have extremist views, err...like The Donald's sidekick, Steve Bannon or Erich Gliebe.  Maybe they just take a dislike to you.  You could just be banned from travelling in the first place.    Turning up at BUD airport immigration desk wielding an issued visa has only given permission to travel, not right of entry.  That's decided by the border officer there and then. Final immigration decisions are always the competence of nation states.

Actually, not that simple. A resident has a right to appeal, for example. As in this case regarding attempted deportation (detention and deportation can not be as capricious as you suggested -- there are requirements that must be met):

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content … mp;from=EN

The ending decision was that deportation is not always valid, but when it is it should be done "under limits imposed by Community law".

No-one said the rule of law was not followed at least to some degree and in all things, having a right of appeal is a sign of civilisation.  But what does it really mean?

A good example of not following those rules is the current status of refugees here - there's no effective right of appeal. That breaks the norms expected of a modern democratic nation and indeed an EU member state.

Refugees here can be deported almost immediately.  Same over there on the US-Mexico border.  They get dumped back on the other side without  much or any access to process or kept in inhuman conditions (same as here).  Access to justice is an indicator of development.  But that's the "Patriot" Act for you.

Anyways, it's perfectly possible to be deported - as an EU national or otherwise - regardless of the legality of the paperwork held facilitating the stay - i.e. a residence permit.  In most cases that seems very reasonable but as usual one size doesn't fit all.

It's very common - for example - for prisoners (EU or otherwise) to be deported after their sentence even  if they are and were legal residents.    Their permit can be withdrawn at any time as it's at the pleasure of the government (of whatever flavour that is at the time). 

In my own country, they deport people all the time over the most trivial things - last one I read (yesterday) was a woman of Nigerian descent, born in the UK, lived there all of her life, went to Uni there, became a jazz singer. However due to a law change in the 1980s which her parents were not aware of, they failed to fill in a form to make her British - it was only a form, nothing else.  Her earlier siblings are British.  It's just due to a form not being filled in.  Bonkers.

As Keith Richards so famously said, "I'll walk before they make me run".
Anyone who feels uncomfortable anywhere should leave for greener pastures where they feel good.
I half heartedly wait for my next knock on the door telling me to get the heck out of Dodge.
Sometimes I think I share too much info and it can and does put one on the radar.

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

As Keith Richards so famously said, "I'll walk before they make me run".
Anyone who feels uncomfortable anywhere should leave for greener pastures where they feel good.
I half heartedly wait for my next knock on the door telling me to get the heck out of Dodge.
Sometimes I think I share too much info and it can and does put one on the radar.

They already know who you are.  You've been profiled 1000s of times from any number of sources. It's all very insidious in the worst case. And in the best case just really annoying if it's all for trying to shove stuff to buy at you.  I heard if you pass through a large airport, you are captured and face recognised 30+ times.

I bought a toolbox online a while back.  Now I get spammed on toolboxes all day.  How many toolboxes does one need?  Maybe three, maybe four if really keen. But not one a week or one a day. Clearly I'm now known in marketing circles for my persistent toolbox buying habits.   

Google is the worst - I have been using Google in English for years but here, it insists I want Google in Hungarian.  I keep setting it back, changing my  profile and blah-blah and it forgets ever 5 minutes.  And then there's the continuous fight against them trying to put cookies of all types on my PC.  It's an arms race.

fluffy2560 wrote:

No-one said the rule of law was not followed at least to some degree and in all things, having a right of appeal is a sign of civilisation.  But what does it really mean?

A good example of not following those rules is the current status of refugees here - there's no effective right of appeal. That breaks the norms expected of a modern democratic nation and indeed an EU member state.

I am of course only discussing the rights of registered, legal residents. The refugee issue is another can of worms. Sadly, yes, International agreements are being ignored, mainly because there is no 'over ridding authority" that allow for appeal, as in the case of registered residents in an EU country.

Another discussion for another day....

fluffy2560 wrote:

Anyways, it's perfectly possible to be deported - as an EU national or otherwise - regardless of the legality of the paperwork held facilitating the stay - i.e. a residence permit.  In most cases that seems very reasonable but as usual one size doesn't fit all.

If it perfectly possible to be convicted of a crime in any country, even if one is innocent. Upon appeal, hopefully, the truth comes out. Wheels of "justice" turn slowly. In a "normal" society, restitution can be later sought for unlawful conviction (even if it is not sufficient).

fluffy2560 wrote:

It's very common - for example - for prisoners (EU or otherwise) to be deported after their sentence even  if they are and were legal residents.

Convicted felons can be deported. That is allowed, under the "risk to society" rule. I have no problem with that. But being deported for being a convicted felon is not the same as a government trying to deport you for saying something about that guy who use to run an alt-right "news" portal.

fluffy2560 wrote:

In my own country, they deport people all the time over the most trivial things - last one I read (yesterday) was a woman of Nigerian descent, born in the UK, lived there all of her life, went to Uni there, became a jazz singer. However due to a law change in the 1980s which her parents were not aware of, they failed to fill in a form to make her British - it was only a form, nothing else.  Her earlier siblings are British.  It's just due to a form not being filled in.  Bonkers.

Yeah... Well.... What can I say..... British "law", bureaucracy, and protocols..... No one can explain or understand those. Artifacts from a long, proud, even if convoluted, history (so definitely not EU normal....).

If she had been born in the USA, it would be a non-issue. [link under review].

klsallee wrote:

.....

I am of course only discussing the rights of registered, legal residents. The refugee issue is another can of worms. Sadly, yes, International agreements are being ignored, mainly because there is no 'overriding authority" that allow for appeal, as in the case of registered residents in an EU country.

Another discussion for another day....

For legal residents, it still doesn't matter, it's all up to the authorities.  There is an authority, ECJ and ECHR which Hungary - for example - signed up to.  I'm a legal resident and I could start being a political agitator given my OV views.  If it was Russia and Putin, I'd be on the plane before I could say political oppression.  Post-Brexit, I'll probably need to STFU.

There's a quite interesting issue of sovereignty around the UN convention on human rights in relation to Hungary.  UN treaty overrides national legislation but what the UN can do about an errant nation is debatable. That's a fudge to say they do nothing much except try to embarrass government into submission.

klsallee wrote:

....If it perfectly possible to be convicted of a crime in any country, even if one is innocent. Upon appeal, hopefully, the truth comes out. Wheels of "justice" turn slowly. In a "normal" society, restitution can be later sought for unlawful conviction (even if it is not sufficient).

Wheels of justice...nice idea and "unlawful conviction" now that's a good concept in some places. USA is a good example. And Japan while I'm at it. Fantastic clear up rate for crimes. Why? Plea bargaining even if not actually guilty. 

So take 1 year probation and plead guilty and get deported or take your risk with a jury and get 20 years and get deported anyway.  No-brainer even if at a laughable allocution you are gritting your teeth, you've got your fingers crossed behind your back and your nose may be getting longer. So no restitution for bad law - three strikes etc.

Furthermore your crime in the USA or elsewhere may not actually be a crime in other places!

klsallee wrote:

...
Convicted felons can be deported. That is allowed, under the "risk to society" rule. I have no problem with that. But being deported for being a convicted felon is not the same as a government trying to deport you for saying something about that guy who use to run an alt-right "news" portal.

Isn't that applying US standards of rights to other places who have no such protections inherent in their own laws?   Certainly anyone can be deported including all EU citizens, including those not actually guilty.  You can be deported over just being an undesirable for simply offending "public policy" - like extremist religious preachers or nutters like Bannon.  That happens all the time - it's even listed in the case noted in the link you posted as a reason to kick someone out - i.e. we just don't like that person for public policy reasons.   

klsallee wrote:

...Yeah... Well.... What can I say..... British "law", bureaucracy, and protocols..... No one can explain or understand those. Artifacts from a long, proud, even if convoluted, history (so definitely not EU normal....).

It's not just the UK, it's everywhere else too.  I only mention the UK because it's the one I'm most familiar with.  I think the last statistics I read said 5000 EU nationals were deported from the UK - don't remember why but they don't really have to explain why unless challenged.  It's not Schengen but it is EU, at least for the moment. 

If you're really interested, you can see this report from Croatia where the police march people back across the BiH border after robbing and beating them.  So they reach EU territory and without process are summarily deported!

It's the zeitgeist - uncomfortable as it seems.

Woefully off topic....c'est la vie....

fluffy2560 wrote:

So take 1 year probation and plead guilty and get deported or take your risk with a jury and get 20 years and get deported anyway.  No-brainer .

Depends on how brave you are. Some brave people took the "brainer" decision to take it the hard way to try to change the system. Some may say a "no-brainer" is the cowards solution. Thankfully, there are some people willing to suffer for the greater good. 18 years on Robbin Island for example. Correct me if wrong -- but was that not once a British colony?

fluffy2560 wrote:

Isn't that applying US standards of rights to other places who have no such protections inherent in their own laws?

Probably.

But is not your discussion about, say refugees, trying to apply English standards of rights? International agreements don't mean much if one country wants to ignore them because the country itself has never really developed an organically grown concept of such rights. How many centuries did it take UK common law to become ethical? A pretty long time. The modern idea that a country can just join an "EU" and "BANG" become ethical is over reaching idealism and thus fundamentally ridiculous (sad, because I want to believe in the idealism, but I don't turn off my brain to what my eyes show me just because it is uncomfortable for my brain).

fluffy2560 wrote:

Certainly anyone can be deported including all EU citizens, including those not actually guilty.  You can be deported over just being an undesirable for simply offending "public policy" - like extremist religious preachers or nutters like Bannon. .

Bannon is not a resident. As I said, I am only considering legal residents.

fluffy2560 wrote:

That happens all the time - it's even listed in the case noted in the link you posted as a reason to kick someone out - i.e. we just don't like that person for public policy reasons.

The case I linked to was not about having an unpopular opinion.

Can you give me an example of a legal Hungarian resident being deported from Hungary for simply having and expressing an unpopular opinion?

fluffy2560 wrote:

It's not just the UK, it's everywhere else too.

No. Not everywhere. As I already stated (but link "under review"), is it not the same in the USA. 14th Amendment would prohibit her deportation. Maybe the UK, and the world, simply needs more 14th Amendments.

fluffy2560 wrote:

If you're really interested, you can see this report from Croatia

Sad. Should not happen.

But again, I am only considering legal EU residents. Not immigrants. So we are not only off topic, but you are still going off my topic. A double off topic. 

klsallee wrote:

fluffy2560 wrote:

So take 1 year probation and plead guilty and get deported or take your risk with a jury and get 20 years and get deported anyway.  No-brainer .

Depends on how brave you are. Some brave people took the "brainer" decision to take it the hard way to try to change the system. Some may say a "no-brainer" is the cowards solution. Thankfully, there are some people willing to suffer for the greater good. 18 years on Robbin Island for example. Correct me if wrong -- but was that not once a British colony?

fluffy2560 wrote:

Isn't that applying US standards of rights to other places who have no such protections inherent in their own laws?

Probably.

But is not your discussion about, say refugees, trying to apply English standards of rights? International agreements don't mean much if one country wants to ignore them because the country itself has never really developed an organically grown concept of such rights. How many centuries did it take UK common law to become ethical? A pretty long time. The modern idea that a country can just join an "EU" and "BANG" become ethical is over reaching idealism and thus fundamentally ridiculous (sad, because I want to believe in the idealism, but I don't turn off my brain to what my eyes show me just because it is uncomfortable for my brain).

fluffy2560 wrote:

Certainly anyone can be deported including all EU citizens, including those not actually guilty.  You can be deported over just being an undesirable for simply offending "public policy" - like extremist religious preachers or nutters like Bannon. .

Bannon is not a resident. As I said, I am only considering legal residents.

fluffy2560 wrote:

That happens all the time - it's even listed in the case noted in the link you posted as a reason to kick someone out - i.e. we just don't like that person for public policy reasons.

The case I linked to was not about having an unpopular opinion.

Can you give me an example of a legal Hungarian resident being deported from Hungary for simply having and expressing an unpopular opinion?

fluffy2560 wrote:

It's not just the UK, it's everywhere else too.

No. Not everywhere. As I already stated (but link "under review"), is it not the same in the USA. 14th Amendment would prohibit her deportation. Maybe the UK, and the world, simply needs more 14th Amendments.

fluffy2560 wrote:

If you're really interested, you can see this report from Croatia

Sad. Should not happen.

But again, I am only considering legal EU residents. Not immigrants. So we are not only off topic, but you are still going off my topic. A double off topic. 

I seriously doubt a citizen of any country can be deported unless the have a remote Island out there or send them to Gitmo.
If your own country doesn't want you then who does?

Marilyn Tassy wrote:

....
I seriously doubt a citizen of any country can be deported unless the have a remote Island out there or send them to Gitmo.
If your own country doesn't want you then who does?

We're so far off topic, we're almost in the mid-Atlantic on the way to Gitmo. 

It's very difficult to deprive a citizen of their citizenship rights but it does happen but I've only heard of it happening when the person involved has dual nationality and would not become stateless by removing one of their nationalities.   No-one cares of course.

Some of these Islamic brides and murderers have been deprived of their citizenship and remain in the camps in Syria or Iraq etc.  Unlikely they would be allowed back and if they were, they'd probably in prison the rest of their lives.

But it depends on which country too - German courts ordered the children of German nationals who were members of I S I S to be brought back to Germany.   I suppose their parents - primarily the mother - have to go back too because of it. 

So if they do want you back, it's probably to stand trial.  But a national could not be deported unless stripped of their citizenship for whatever reason.  Good example is Abul Hamza's son Sufiyan Mustafa.  No loss.

klsallee wrote:

.....
Depends on how brave you are. Some brave people took the "brainer" decision to take it the hard way to try to change the system. Some may say a "no-brainer" is the cowards solution. Thankfully, there are some people willing to suffer for the greater good. 18 years on Robbin Island for example. Correct me if wrong -- but was that not once a British colony?

I dunno, coward vs pragmatism?  Who wants to REALLY fall on their sword?  It's like being kidnapped by say the North Koreans or someone else, being forced to declare yourself as an evil spy in a press conference but then being let go and returned home.  Obviously, you'll say whatever they want, get out of there and immediately renounce your confession from the safety of another country.

Not sure how Mandela came into this other than being convicted but history of ZA (South Africa) is a variable one. It wasn't a British colony in those times as it left the Commonwealth in the 1960s.  If you look at their old flag, you can see with nations were involved - the Boers (i.e Dutch) didn't like the Union flag and had a bit of the NL flag put in.

klsallee wrote:

.....
But is not your discussion about, say refugees, trying to apply English standards of rights? International agreements don't mean much if one country wants to ignore them because the country itself has never really developed an organically grown concept of such rights. How many centuries did it take UK common law to become ethical? A pretty long time. The modern idea that a country can just join an "EU" and "BANG" become ethical is over reaching idealism and thus fundamentally ridiculous (sad, because I want to believe in the idealism, but I don't turn off my brain to what my eyes show me just because it is uncomfortable for my brain).

Well, first of all, there's no English standard of rights nor even a UK bill of rights. But there are norms on how we measure civilisation and they are - at least in the West - very similar.   

UK is not a great example for talking about norms of human rights because we have no written constitution to reference other than the Magna Carta (trivia: also used extensively in US State constitutions btw).   

So maybe should think about accepted norms rather than specific countries. 

Maybe European Convention of Human Rights or UN versions.

klsallee wrote:

.....Bannon is not a resident. As I said, I am only considering legal residents.

Hmmm...maybe but Bannon or the other fella could be in the country legally, i.e. they passed through but I think it doesn't matter really, they could be told to leave anytime, resident or otherwise. 

US is a different thing because it considers all visitors as potential immigrants even if they are just passing through. 

klsallee wrote:

....
The case I linked to was not about having an unpopular opinion.

No, it wasn't but it did say the various reasons why someone could be deported from NL and one of them being public policy. 

That fella was hassled as a potential illegal immigrant whereas he was simply lacking the ID documents to show his treaty rights and the authorities didn't allow him any time to obtain them to show he had them (treaty rights).

klsallee wrote:

....
Can you give me an example of a legal Hungarian resident being deported from Hungary for simply having and expressing an unpopular opinion?

Well, obviously not recently for Hungary as I didn't look it up but I'm pretty sure we could find someone soon enough.  I'm only saying the legal framework will exist to allow people to be deported, legal resident or otherwise.  Protesting down at the Parliament and shouting OV is a fascist is likely to bring the authorities on you pretty quickly and on the plane sharpish.

If I wanted to be a pedant and hopefully pulling enough of a fast one and thereby dodging a Godwin-bullet, I could cite the deportation of Hungarian Jews in 1944, deported from their own country. 

klsallee wrote:

....
No. Not everywhere. As I already stated (but link "under review"), is it not the same in the USA. 14th Amendment would prohibit her deportation. Maybe the UK, and the world, simply needs more 14th Amendments.

Sure they need more amendments.  But look at it this way, the jazz singer is - according to the reports - not a citizen.  Therefore she can be deported despite having permanent residency. 

Being born in the USA or somewhere else doesn't always mean one is a citizen (i.e. diplomats' kids born there are not US citizens).  There's also the really odd one about those kids of the Russian spies - they weren't citizens (of Canada) either although that has changed for one of them!

Many years ago, one of my student friends was the offspring of a Belgium diplomat and had lived in the UK all of his life and had a London accent - wasn't British either. Had to get naturalised.

Let's not discuss American Samoa.  Somosa maybe.

klsallee wrote:

....
Sad. Should not happen.

But again, I am only considering legal EU residents. Not immigrants. So we are not only off topic, but you are still going off my topic. A double off topic. 

I think we should off-topic this elsewhere. 

But just to say all legal EU residents are immigrants anyway including me and thee.

Now it's a triple whammy off-topic burger with no Szekesfehervar beef in it.